Re: [wsrm] [REL-XX]Proposal for POLL RM-Reply Pattern

[Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>]

Patrick Yee wrote:

>
>> At the Redwood City meeting last May we came to general agreement 
>> that the protocol
>> requires persistence to work (e.g, persistence of ids for duplicate 
>> elimintation, persistence of
>> message contents for ordered delivery).  However, some users might we 
>> willing to accept
>> protocol failure under specific circumstances which are agreed witht 
>> the system supplier (e.g, if the battery is not kept charged on a 
>> cell phone, it might loose its "persistence" capability).
>>
>> Thus this preagreed limit for persistence time is subject to user 
>> contract, since it involves an
>> argreement as to what conditions are acceptable for tolerating 
>> protocol failure.
>>
>> I hope this helps.
>
>
>
> I see. That's fine for tolerating protocol failure. Now, the 
> persistence is not only for the purpose of reliable protocol only, but 
> also for the purpose of status query. If I said I support status 
> query, it will be unreasonable for me to delete the persistence, since 
> the spec doesn't indicate a deadline which I can delete the 
> persistence after that..

The status query is part of our protocol.  This everything I stated 
holds for it as well.

In some cases, where persistence has failed n a receiver RMP, the status 
query protocol will fail as well.

Tom Rutt

>
>
> Am I on the right track?
>
> Regards, -Patrick
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster 
> of the OASIS TC), go to 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/members/leave_workgroup.php. 
>
>


-- 
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt		email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@fsw.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133